PART 1ECOLOGICAL AND GENETIC RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Step 1Likelihood of establishment and spreading beyond the intended area of introduction
|
|
|
|
Event | Likelihood(H, M, L) | Certainty(VC, RC, RU, VU) | Comments in support of assessment |
---|
The introduced or translocated species, escaped or dispersed, successfully colonises and maintains a population in the intended area of introduction beyond the control of the aquaculture facility. | | | |
The introduced species or translocated, escaped or dispersed, spreads beyond the intended area of introduction. | | | |
Final rating | | | |
Step 2Consequences of establishment and spreading
|
|
Event | Likelihood(H, M, L) | Certainty(VC, RC, RU, VU) | Comments in support of assessment |
---|
Genetic mixing with local populations leads to a loss of genetic diversity. | | | |
Competition (food, space) with or predation on native populations leads to their extirpation. | | | |
Other undesirable events of ecological nature | | | |
Some of the abovementioned events persist even after removal of the introduced species. | | | |
Final rating | | | |
Step 3Risk potential associated to the alien and locally absent species
A single value is given based on the assessments done in Steps 1 and 2:
|
|
Component | Risk potential(H, M, L) | Certainty(VC, RC, RU, VU) | Comments in support of assessment |
---|
Establishment and spreading (step 1) | | | |
Ecological consequences (step 2) | | | |
Final rating of overall risk potential | | | |
The result of this assessment will be expressed in terms of the following risk levels:
A high-risk movement:
(a)
has a high risk of damaging biodiversity from spreading and other ecological consequences;
(b)
operates under farming conditions which would increase the risk of such damage;
(c)
involves an aquaculture facility which sells live aquatic animals for further farming or restocking;
(d)
as a consequence, the movement is of major concern (major mitigation measures are required). It is advised that the proposal be rejected unless mitigation procedures can be developed to reduce the risk to low.
A medium-risk movement:
(a)
has a medium risk of damaging biodiversity from spreading and other ecological consequences;
(b)
operates under farming conditions which would not necessarily increase the risk of such damage, taking account of the species and the containment conditions;
(c)
involves an aquaculture facility which sells its products mainly for human consumption;
(d)
as a consequence the movement is of moderate concern. It is advised that the proposal be rejected unless mitigation procedures can be developed to reduce the risk to low.
A low-risk movement:
(a)
has a low risk of damaging biodiversity from spreading and other ecological consequences.
(b)
operates under farming conditions which would not increase the risk of such damage;
(c)
involves an aquaculture facility which sells its products for human consumption only;
(d)
as a consequence the movement is of negligible concern. It is advised that the proposal be approved. Mitigation is not needed.
The proposal can only be approved as presented (no mitigating measures required) if the overall estimated risk potential is low and if the overall certainty for which the overall risk has been estimated is very certain or reasonably certain.
If, as a result of a first analysis, a high or medium category is attributed to the overall risk, then containment or mitigation proposals are to be incorporated in the application, which will be subject to subsequent risk analysis until the final rating for the overall risk becomes low with a very certain or reasonably certain assessment. Descriptions of these additional steps, together with detailed specifications of the containment or mitigation measures, will become an integral part of the risk assessment.